Patterico's Pontifications

10/18/2007

House Unable to Override Bush’s SChip Veto (Subtitle: Rep. Pete Stark Loses It) – Updated

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 6:15 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

By a vote of 273-156, the House of Representatives failed to override President Bush’s veto of the SCHIP legislation and, as a result, Rep. Pete Stark-CA was overcome with Bush Derangement Syndrome:

“You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people, if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”

Video here.

UPDATE: From the Instapundit, Nancy Pelosi finally condemns Stark’s comments.

— DRJ

47 Responses to “House Unable to Override Bush’s SChip Veto (Subtitle: Rep. Pete Stark Loses It) – Updated”

  1. Bush is willing to borrow more than 400 billion dollars for a pointless war in a foreign country, and he’s willing to send the bill (with sizable interest) to our children, but he’s not willing to sign a pay-as-you-go plan to give those children health insurance. It’s just plain sick.

    I don’t know what syndrome Pete Stark has, but I sure hope it spreads. We need more representatives who are willing to speak up like that.

    Oregonian (ce35dd)

  2. Pete Stark should be censured.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  3. Oregonian…it is not a pay as you go, when it puts people 400 percent over poverty into the plan…when it moves people from private insurers to the public dole….and, when it is opened up to people like the Frosts that make decisions to have material things instead of helping to pay for their children’s health….

    And that is not a personal attack on the Frosts…I’m in the same position they are, with my family, and I make decisions to have health insurance, with three 5+ year old cars and my $45K home….and my own paid health insurance….

    Which is much more important than new cars, and private schooling (they are not on FULL SCHOLARSHIPS) and THREE CARS FOR TWO DRIVERS….

    reff (99666d)

  4. All money bills originate in the House of Representatives, Oregonian. Go bitch to Nancy Pelosi for the funding of the Iraq War.

    nk (6e4f93)

  5. Oregonian–Alphie, is that you?

    tmac (0c909a)

  6. Gee, Oregonian, maybe we could of ALL had free health care if that stupid Franklin Roosevelt had not spent billions on a pointless war in a foreign country, or Truman in his pointless war or even JFK in his pointless war.
    How far back do you want to go?

    And tell me, just where in the Constitution does it say that you, or anyone for that matter, is “entitled” to free health care paid for my me? Why should I pay for the health care for the kids that other people had the pleasure of making and now want the government to support? I want free car insurance and I think that I am “entitled” to it. After all, the government says that if I am going to drive, I have to have car insurance, no exceptions (that is unless I was an illegal alien). So while the government is forcing me to insure my car, I think you should have to help me pay for it. Don’t you agree?
    And while we are at it, I want a free cell phone. And free XM radio. Maybe a plasma or LCD 42″ TV. After all, I’m entitled.

    Stark should be run out of Congress tarred and feathered and it the dimwits in his state reelect him, they deserve every disgrace he brings upon them.

    retire05 (54a6a1)

  7. Hey DRJ, I’ll trade you one Pete Stark nutty for one Steve King nutty:

    Steve King

    In case his visual aid is a little hard to read, it says: Socialized Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.

    I guess the difference is he actually planned his out.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  8. Whoops, make that “Socialized Clinton style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.”

    Another high-concept floor discussion.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  9. Not me, nk,

    I’m kinda enjoying the neocon’s death spiral.

    I think them 156 brave little soldiers are gonna have a rather tough time explaining their vote next November.

    alphie (99bc18)

  10. The POINT of the S-CHIP program is to make the private health insurance industry less stable.

    The expansion would create a financial incentive for many parents in the middle class to take their children off private health insurance plans and put them in the S-CHIP program.

    Insurance is about pooling risks. As you take people out of the pool, you defeat the efficacy of the risk-sharing.

    The logical progression of this effort will to look for ways to “mandate” employers to provide health insurance. For those who don’t, they will have to pay into a state fund, and that state fund will then provide coverage. Slowly this will be converted to a single-payor system.

    This is all very predictable. Hillary & Co. have never hidden their desire to move in this direction. 1993 simply made her understand that the transformation would have to be incremental.

    So, children of middle class families who can afford health insurance will instead have gov’t provided health coverage paid for by a regressive “vice-tax” that hits the poor the hardest.

    Democratic wisdom.

    WLS (bafbcb)

  11. Insurance is about pooling risks. As you take people out of the pool, you defeat the efficacy of the risk-sharing.

    And yet employers are leaving the pool in greater numbers.

    “Fewer American workers have insurance now than did seven years ago and fewer American firms are offering insurance now than did then. U.S. businesses’ insurance costs make them less competitive globally and depress cash wages.”

    http://www.ced.org/

    Publicly subsidized individual health insurance will displace traditional employer-based financing.

    steve (635e1d)

  12. Steve #11:

    And of course employer-based health insurance is publicly subsidized as well.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  13. Itsme again demonstrates that being able to refrute the topic he meanders off into the jungle of abuse that is the reservation of the Kos Kiddies. Whats the matter Itsme, too hard to disprove the statement?

    Itsme specializes in cauterwauling crescendos-really evidence and logic carry a great deal more weight. Demonstrate your case or stay in the troll mode.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  14. Death spiral… Yes… The inability to pass anything you folks promised that you’d pass is certainly the death knell for the party I usually support.

    You logic, sir, is flawless.

    I am defeated.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  15. And of course employer-based health insurance is publicly subsidized as well.

    What isn’t?

    Medicare reimburses hospitals by the hour for emergency room visits at rates higher than the per-diem room rate.

    steve (635e1d)

  16. Guess American voters will have to remove the obstruction next November, Scott.

    President Hillary with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is a scary thought.

    alphie (99bc18)

  17. What drives me crazy about all talk about insurance is the fact that most people think insurance is some sort of ‘right’.

    Insurance companies are a gambling business. They gamble that they will make more money than they will have to pay out. It is not some constitutional right that our founding fathers put in the Constitution….

    Either pay for it yourselves, or don’t have kids. Or get two jobs to pay for the insurance for your kids. It’s not my job to pay for others medical bills.

    And, Oregonian…are you a child? The war in the mideast is necessary to combat the psychos that want to kill us….grow up!

    Stacy In Tucson (b99466)

  18. Just a heads up, Thomas. I’m not a he.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  19. steve #15:

    I was thinking of the tax breaks, but you make a good point.

    Itsme (77c7e1)

  20. That was Starks third infraction during the course of the debate today. On the first he was called down by the Chair of the House and after the last one he was called on a point of order and a transcript was read back and the Chair determined there was no violation of House Rule 17.

    daytrader (ea6549)

  21. It’s not my job to pay for others medical bills.
    Either pay for it yourselves, or don’t have kids.

    Those unable to grasp health care inflation is dampened by purchasing clout should not have kids.

    steve (635e1d)

  22. Comment by daytrader — 10/18/2007 @ 7:57 pm

    The man is a despicable disgrace.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  23. So far, the mainstream news media is not reporting Stark’s comments. Wonder why.

    fouse, gary c (33b5ba)

  24. After Stark got done showing of his superior debating skills he went over to the Land Of Koz for a group hug (where he holds a rating of +165) and the the clones of PaulBots showed up at any place swiftboating da man. Including official RNC blogs.

    daytrader (ea6549)

  25. #1
    Democrats are willing to spend and borrow trillions of dollars for a pointless war on poverty that they lost 20 years ago. And they are willing to send the bill (with interest) to our children who they refuse to educate with decent schools. It is just plain sick.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  26. Pete Stark will have no trouble getting reelected; and all I can say to you idiots is keep talking, and keep voting your consciences: the republicans will sink even faster.
    Keep at it kids!

    If you can’t afford it you shouldn’t have children….

    more, more!!
    I’m loving it.

    blah (7b03e4)

  27. Yes, blah, we all hate kids. And Papa Frost was a responsible parent in not providing for the health and safety of their children. While we are at it, we hate old people too. And minorities. And anyone not American.

    What is it like to argue with the hordes of strawpeople in your head?

    JD (ba4c77)

  28. keep attacking the middle class…
    please… oh pretty please.

    “Democrats are willing to spend and borrow trillions of dollars for a pointless war on poverty that they lost 20 years ago. ”

    Look at the funding charts jackass, the war on poverty worked and the record shows it, but investment in that “war” peaked in the early 70’s and has been declining since, as did the success. Look at the improvements through the 60’s.
    More lies and willful ignorance.

    And always glad to help keep you honest Pat.
    You backtrack with the best of them

    blah (7b03e4)

  29. Blah:
    The war on poverty worked? Oh joy then we spend less than we did 20 years ago? The per centage of people destinated as poor is less in absolute terms? The number of people drawing government welfare/aid is less?

    Three trillion dollars wasted to support the welfare bureaucrats, their welfare spawn and of course the feel good crowd. Results nil, but the feel good intention-priceless.

    More federal black holes coming soon. Remember only leftist trolls can prevent the hard working from achieving success.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  30. Just a heads up, Thomas. I’m not a he.

    Comment by Itsme — 10/18/2007 @ 7:55 pm

    That helps explain a lot of the irrationality.

    Thanks for the explaination.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  31. #28 Blah:
    Wow, are you ever out of touch. If the war on poverty worked, how come 26.6 million Americans are currently on food stamps (up from 19.1 million participants in 1987)?

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  32. itsme and alphie, Steve King cares more about kids than either of you have ever shown. As an Iowa State Senator, King fought for NEEDED changes before things went wrong, especially under Fmr. Sen Bob Kerrey’s sister, Jaime Rasmussen. It was you leftists and statists who say leave child care and persecuting of parents to the people that know better. Well, you all failed Shelby Duis. Since there was no Federal benefits to the State left as all had been exhausted on Shelby, the state employee social worker decided that looking for other kids to bring under the jurisdiction of the state was more important than spend his time and state money to remove an endangered kid from her home. Shelby died from a beating from her mother’s live in boyfriend. Gov. Tom Vilsack chose to protect the state government from change rather than listen to King or act on a long list of needed changes that came about over his objections and that of the state workers’ union. I know because I formulated the list that King publicly gave the Governor at a public meeting on what happened to Shelby.

    So take your “Republicans don’t care about kids” and use it as a cork.

    PCD (b47ba5)

  33. They’re all against poverty, war and injustice; unlike the rest of us squares.

    Techie (c003f1)

  34. Lack of sense,
    You’ve never looked at the charts and you’re talking out your ass.
    Its not about opinions its about data. But not to idiot wingnuts I guess.

    blah (45c64a)

  35. Pete Stark “losing it” would indicate that he had it to begin with. This is clearly not the case.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  36. Pete Stark is proof that the village atheist and the village idiot are often the same person.

    Glen Wishard (b1987d)

  37. blah – King of the witty repartee. Perfect Sense provided a link to his stats. You, on the other hand, called him names. Who to believe? Close call. I am going with someone not named blah.

    You truly are the first person I have ever heard that the War on Poverty is a success.

    JD (133ebd)

  38. Blah, at #28: the war on poverty worked and the record shows it, but investment in that “war” peaked in the early 70’s and has been declining since, as did the success

    Thomas Jackson, at #29: then we spend less than we did 20 years ago? The per centage of people destinated as poor is less in absolute terms?

    Perfect Sense, at #32: If the war on poverty worked, how come 26.6 million Americans are currently on food stamps (up from 19.1 million participants in 1987)?

    Without wanting to speak for Blah, and without expressing any opinion on the efficacy of the war on poverty (because I’m not familiar with the statistics and so cannot comment on them), it seems to me that Blah’s response to these two questions would be that the war on poverty worked when it was being fought in the 1960s and early 1970s, and that it reduced poverty rates at that time, and that the reason that poverty rates went up between 1987 and 2006, is entirely because we effectively stopped fighting the war on poverty during the 1970s.

    What’s more, I think that such an answer could be predicted by anyone who read comment #28, and would ask both Thomas Jackson and Perfect Sense why they think evidence of an increase in poverty during the last twenty years is evidence of the failure of a program whose primary support and affect was forty years ago.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  39. What I don’t understand is why 15 GOP Senators and 50 or so GOP Congressmen just don’t resign right now and demand that they be replaced with Democrats, since apparently it is inevitable that 2008 will be a disaster for the Republican Party.

    All of this idiotic grandstanding by Lefties like alphie has the same ring to it as the declarations that 2004 was a “realignment election” and that the Democrats were undeniably doomed to being a minority party “for decades.”

    The American people are by now fully convinced that the current legislators in both parties are either unable or unwilling to accomplish much of anything. They will vote for candidates who they believe will be able to accomplish something, anything, other than a never-ending stream of dueling press releases that seem to have no purpose other than seeing which party can express the most manufactured self-righteous indignation in double-spaced Times New Roman or whatever font they use.

    The 2008 elections will hinge on events in Iraq and which party will be able to position itself in the minds of the public as best representing a clean break from the past six years of intense and short-sighted partisanship. The GOP and the Democrats both have an equal chance at accomplishing that.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  40. #38
    Changes to the poverty rate were due to the expansion of the economy, not the trillions wasted on the war-on-poverty.

    As for the false claim that more was spent on the war-on-poverty 40 years ago, consider the following facts:

    People on food stamps in 1969, 2.8 million.
    People on food stamps in 2006 26.6 million.

    Current Federal poverty spending(excluding local and state governments) is $400 billion per year or 16% of the federal government.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  41. Remind me again, why are we paying to let the herd weaklings survive?

    C. Darwin (febd1d)

  42. PCD #32:

    You’ll have to show me where I said “Republicans don’t care about kids.”

    Steve King may do a lot for kids. He just tends toward inane sloganeering and his use of huge visual aids to announce it to the world doesn’t enhance his position much.

    Itsme (5ec76d)

  43. “Remind me again, why are we paying to let the herd weaklings survive?”

    go daddy go!

    blah (7b03e4)

  44. Perfect Sense: I’m not familiar with the numbers, as I said, so I’m unable to analyze the claim that the war on poverty was or was not a success. My quarrel was entirely with the notion that a claim that something succeeded forty years ago could be refuted with statistics from the last twenty years.

    Thank you for updating your statistics with more relevant data.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  45. Granny McRictusface Pelosi said Stark’s comments about Iraq were innapropriate today. Wait for Nutroots explosion.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  46. “Wow, are you ever out of touch. If the war on poverty worked, how come 26.6 million Americans are currently on food stamps (up from 19.1 million participants in 1987)?”

    You sound like a communist or something, blaming the “market based” economic policies of the past 30 years on the poverty rate. The change began with Carter. Look it up.
    And of course Clinton ended “welfare was we know it” right?

    Morton Kondracke!!?

    “You have George Bush, who promised in 2004 at the Republican National Convention that he was going to cover millions of children who were not covered by SCHIP if he was reelected? And what does he do? He proposes a bill that would result in almost a million kids losing their coverage from the level it’s at. It’s no wonder Bush’s approval ratings is in the 30’s.”

    blah (7b03e4)

  47. You want numbers?
    Here.
    Now get to work

    blah (7b03e4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3832 secs.